>>1337742613:12 where Charlie Rose gets really obsessed with talking about stem cells. I vaguely remember the rhetoric at the time and I can see how it would be an included talking point, but it really seems forced. It is especially noticeable when they talk about the California referendum, whatever it may have been, which hasn't been introduced in any meaningful way in the talk. He is asking for reasons why he disapproves of it. This is very weird shit for a public discussion, even if it was targeting a California audience. The interviewer won't have as much interest or knowledge about a field as their respondent, obviously he is talking from a script.
The topic is Crichton's opinion on federal regulation at the time, and Crichton is trying to deliver a point about funding finding new channels. Rose switches to the California referendum, taking the side of a proponent of it. Of course, as a shill an interviewer generally won't be anything more, when Crichton has any appearance or semblance of argument they have to move from the topic. And after a seeming agreement that more money is coming into the sector, Rose goes on to brain drain with an unspoken implication being related to lack of money. The question is framed in such a fucked up way it makes me think it is some hypnotic suggestion for the audience itself.
>that is not a small problem>OR IS IT?!?!?!?!>le mischiefCan someone explain if this is just about reviving rhetoric into the discussion for appeal, are these talking points supposed to be convincing, was this a miscalculation and they intended to be more sly about it? Does this happen a lot in Charlie Rose interviews. I am getting this notion that it is some kind of punditry targeted at intellectuals, something that isn't the hard sell waiting for you at six on Fox or CNN. I want to see more examples of this, if it is anything.
